Why did CCAC give a resounding "Thumbs-down"...

TwoSides2aCoin

... to the U.S. Mint's plans to reissue classic coin designs on some of it's high-priced platinum Proof and bullion coins ?

I know why because I've read the reasons and the article in Coin World.
But I'm left with a question, or two.
Primarily; who are the creative artists and how do they get their works to the right place for consideration ?
Secondarily; Which designs might appeal more to collectors of the future ?

Type2

Old farts never want change. As long as they look good and not all funky looking. I my salf would like to see a old coin with a new date. That would be a very cool and nice looking coin or set. I can see it now a hamered Buffalo nickel that says 2014 or a Sliver PR Half Dime in a set or in a type set with all nice coins in it. But that is just me and why dont we just let the mint try some stuff any thing can be better the the priz $$$ or the coins we have for the past 20+ years kinda geting bernt out on them same old Quarter's and so on we need new blood and this is how we can get it.


PS: Dan Carr will know.

Bochiman

I'd like to see the old designs, but on the circulating coinage. Not on bullion that is collectible but not circulating.

AUandAG

Hey guys, don't despair. The reason that they are collectible is because they don't make that
coin anymore! New designs, while I don't always like them, are good because they then phase
out the old....


bob

PS: I'll go read the article.

Zoins

Perhaps because they want classic coin designs issued on classic materials like gold and silver?

Just a guess, but it seems plausible given that we have the UHR, AGEs, ASEs, gold buffalos, silver buffalos, etc.

As for "Which designs might appeal more to collectors of the future," I'd suggest designs of the past.

dcarr

<< <i>... to the U.S. Mint's plans to reissue classic coin designs on some of it's high-priced platinum Proof and bullion coins ?

I know why because I've read the reasons and the article in Coin World.
But I'm left with a question, or two.
Primarily; who are the creative artists and how do they get their works to the right place for consideration ?
Secondarily; Which designs might appeal more to collectors of the future ? >>



Other than the rare open Design Contests (such as that for the recent Baseball coins), the only works considered by the US Mint are those from Mint staff and the members of the Mint's exclusive "Artistic Infusion Program".

In recent times, when the US Mint has made some modern versions of classic designs, they all seem to come out somewhat sterile and not quite on the mark.
There aren't a lot of new allegorical Liberty designs being created. But I like them and that is why I have made ones like this:

Elcontador

I'd like to see a new commemorative with Richard Nixon on one side, and the actor / actress 'Divine' on the reverse.
Or a circulating coin with Moms Mabley on the obverse.

Bochiman

I like the top left, facing left bust. Artistically, I think it looks nice and flows nicely.
Not a fan of the others as they seem sterile and too "computer aided". Doesn't matter if most are that way these days, those just seem like it to me.

Type2

Ya i see what you are saying Bochiman. They need some rought lines in the filed or something look to perfict but cool.

dcarr

<< <i>I like the top left, facing left bust. Artistically, I think it looks nice and flows nicely.
Not a fan of the others as they seem sterile and too "computer aided". Doesn't matter if most are that way these days, those just seem like it to me. >>



Well, they are computer renderings and not actual coins.
The actual coins generated from these would look a little different.

LochNESS

<< <i>I'd like to see the old designs, but on the circulating coinage. Not on bullion that is collectible but not circulating. >>




With slight exception in that I hope we can learn from our mistakes, in other words fix the old design flaws that led to die cracks and other errors (if you know your mint history you know what I'm talking about ... all the designs that were prone to striking issues due to the nature of their reliefs other design elements).

87redcivic

I would like if the coin designs (re)used were classic patterns that never got to circulate among the public. I think it would be really nice to see a 1/4 platinum eagle with a Shield Earring Dollar obverse, or a Washlady obverse. If they made a gold eagle set with the amazonian obverse, I'm sure there would be a lot of interest in it. Of course... if the designs were modified to be a much lower relief, I reserve my right to disavow this "good idea".

If they were to make a circulating coin, my first choice would be the 1792 pattern quarter design. I'd love to see that in my change.

ebaybuyer

imagine the profit the mint could make if they re-issued 18th and 19th and even early 20th century designs for circulation (on a commemorative basis) imagine the thrill of seeing a brand new 2015 standing liberty quarter in your change, or a 2017 mercury dime, or the barber series, or seated, or hell even an indian cent, of course they would "improve" the design which would look worse than the Chinese knock-offs. the current junk that the mint spews out is geared toward ripping err "pleasing" the collector, a re-issue would be saved non-collectors and would enjoy the same success as the 50 state quarter program

Bochiman

<< <i>

<< <i>I like the top left, facing left bust. Artistically, I think it looks nice and flows nicely.
Not a fan of the others as they seem sterile and too "computer aided". Doesn't matter if most are that way these days, those just seem like it to me. >>



Well, they are computer renderings and not actual coins.
The actual coins generated from these would look a little different. >>



I understand that, and believe I acknowledged it...guess I wasn't explicit enough, eh?

I also understand that they would look a little different, but not enough to change my view based on what I have seen already done.

ricko

The 'artistic infusion' program does not seem to be working..... modern coins, for the most part, are terrible... Cheers, RickO